Bikri Narayana and anr. Vs. State of Hyderabad - Court Judgment
|Court||Andhra Pradesh High Court|
|Judge||Palnitkar and ;Suryanarayana Rao, JJ.|
|Appellant||Bikri Narayana and anr.|
|Respondent||State of Hyderabad|
.....grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of sections 170 and 149 of the act. the insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. in the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable.
section 166: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] claim for compensation accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle ..........the allahabad high court reported in - m.m. bashir v. state aur 1951 all. 357 (a). but this single bench ruling has been dissented from in a division bench ruling of the same high court, which is reported in - ram adhar misra v state air 1951 all. 18(b). the single bench judgment was delivered on 20-6-1950 whereas the division bench judgment was delivered on 14-9-1950. the division bench after considering the law on the subject has come to a conclusion contrary to that arrived at in the single bench and has categorically held that the non-mention of the period of detention does not make the detention illegal or ultra vires. we agree. this contention fails. it is further urged that the grounds of detention are vague. among the grounds stated it is also alleged that when the s.a.p. party.....
1. These are two applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus on behalf of detnus (a) Badri Narayana and (2) Enamula Bicham Reddy.
2. The grounds of detention are the same in both cases. The advocate for the detenus arguesthat in the order of detention the period of detention has not been mentioned and that therefore the detention itself is illegal. In support he relies on a ruling of the Allahabad High Court reported in - M.M. Bashir v. State AUR 1951 All. 357 (A). But this Single Bench ruling has been dissented from in a Division Bench ruling of the same High Court, which is reported in - Ram Adhar Misra v State AIR 1951 All. 18(B). The Single Bench judgment was delivered on 20-6-1950 whereas the Division Bench judgment was delivered on 14-9-1950. The Division Bench after considering the law on the subject has come to a conclusion contrary to that arrived at in the Single Bench and has categorically held that the non-mention of the period of detention does not make the detention illegal or ultra vires. We agree. This contention fails. It is further urged that the grounds of detention are vague. Among the grounds stated it is also alleged that when the S.A.P. party of Cherumadram raided the village on 24-1-1951 these detenus hid three underground hostiles in the housed of one Bhusayya and then they followed the police as informants. It is also learnt that the detenus are in possession of some weapons, without any licence evidently to help the hostiles.
3. We consider these grounds sufficient and decline to interfere. The petitions are therefore dismissed.